Modes [video] BGS & Power play in SOLO & PRIVATE

[Yamiks]

[video=youtube_share;Y48U_JXYMLk]https://youtu.be/Y48U_JXYMLk[/video]

After reading them threads where people complain about BGS & that doing things for it in solo is cheating : it sparked an idea for this!
Now to note once more : doing BGS or power play in solo or private IS NOT CHEATING and if you think it is : well you are wrong!
Still do I think that BGS & Power play influence be reserved ONLY for open.. Yes.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Watching your vids is a guilty pleasure. Keep 'em coming.

 

[Dommarraa]

IMHO Political Campaigning for your pet peeves should not be allowed in GD.
If you have a suggestion, there is a forum for that.

But I'm not a MOD so it doesnt matter

 

[Mohrgan]

Thoughts like these stem from the idea that open is the controlling mode, or is somehow superior to the other modes. When it isn't. The BGS system is specifically designed to allow for universal access. No PvP influences the BGS, while buckets can be filled from any and all modes. Trying to shoehorn PvP as the determining factor in BGS work is wrong. Take into consideration all of the platforms that associate with the BGS, and then look at the basics of Instancing in E|D and you will see that trying to restrict BGS activities to open only is poitless.

I can concede to the notion that PP can or could be a open only, or open incentivized feature. But, the fact remains that even PP is fought via PvE buckets, and that allows all modes to have the same influence.

The last point I will bring up is: Even those complaining of a Solo/PG advantage can easily take advantage of it. There is nothing, but personal gamer ethics and choice, holding Commanders back from using that advantage just like they use Outfitting and Engineers to their advantage.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

Hehe...

There's only one tiny (huge) flaw in the argument.

The BGS affect everyone. So if Players want to change things, they should have to do it in Open Play.

Logical Flaw : Open does not mean everyone. It's actually (even if only by a narrow margin) the minority by now.

Thus : The BGS also affects Solo or PG Mode Players. So if Players want to change things, they should have to do it in Solo or PG Modes as well.

Case closed.
All working as intended

Everything else is Hotel California and the usual, irrational "Mode racism" found there.

PS.
What are PC Open Players doing about XBOX and PS4 Open Players? *oh wait* it's the same there as well, despite all being in "Open Play" xD

 

[Surprised Brony]

Thoughts like these stem from the idea that open is the controlling mode, or is somehow superior to the other modes. When it isn't. The BGS system is specifically designed to allow for universal access. No PvP influences the BGS, while buckets can be filled from any and all modes. Trying to shoehorn PvP as the determining factor in BGS work is wrong. Take into consideration all of the platforms that associate with the BGS, and then look at the basics of Instancing in E|D and you will see that trying to restrict BGS activities to open only is poitless.

I can concede to the notion that PP can or could be a open only, or open incentivized feature. But, the fact remains that even PP is fought via PvE buckets, and that allows all modes to have the same influence.

The last point I will bring up is: Even those complaining of a Solo/PG advantage can easily take advantage of it. There is nothing, but personal gamer ethics and choice, holding Commanders back from using that advantage just like they use Outfitting and Engineers to their advantage.

Couldn't think of the words, myself. I fully agree. I'll never understand people thinking Open should be the only way to experience another huge chunk of the game. Solo players are already missing out on player interaction, why try to take more from them?

 

[Bonzodog]

The BGS is also completely cross platform, and the majority of those complaining are on PC. I actually know of Xbox groups who deliberately target systems run by PC only PMF's, and can do whatever they like to the PC without getting disturbed due to the XBox having even worse instancing issues than PC. (plus p2p on Xbox is limited by design to 16 players).

So do those that complain want consoles barred from the BGS as well?

 

[Sylveria]

Thoughts like these stem from the idea that open is the controlling mode, or is somehow superior to the other modes. When it isn't. The BGS system is specifically designed to allow for universal access. No PvP influences the BGS, while buckets can be filled from any and all modes. Trying to shoehorn PvP as the determining factor in BGS work is wrong. Take into consideration all of the platforms that associate with the BGS, and then look at the basics of Instancing in E|D and you will see that trying to restrict BGS activities to open only is poitless.

I can concede to the notion that PP can or could be a open only, or open incentivized feature. But, the fact remains that even PP is fought via PvE buckets, and that allows all modes to have the same influence.

The last point I will bring up is: Even those complaining of a Solo/PG advantage can easily take advantage of it. There is nothing, but personal gamer ethics and choice, holding Commanders back from using that advantage just like they use Outfitting and Engineers to their advantage.

Agreed.

As I've said before and will continue to reiterate, FDEV designed the BGS with this in mind. i.e., "Working as intended".

Solo/PG's players did NOT create this problem- and Solo/PG's players shouldn't be restricted in any way as a result. People who play in Open perceiving this as a "problem" continue to target PG's/Solo players as a venue for their frustrations/rage/jealousy instead of addressing the issue where the responsibility squarely lies- which is on FDEV's shoulders.

As FDEV introduced this system with the ability to affect BGS outcome from ALL modes, if people are perceiving it as an "issue" then perhaps they're expecting a different game.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Even assuming FDev make PP and the BGS Open-only (which they won't) there's still the basic problem that you can switch modes at any time. This allows people to avoid any PvP activity by flying Solo/Group and then simply switch to Open when they 'cash in'.

 

[the100thmonkey]

For every BGS action, there is a counter. Every action. No exceptions.

These actions and their counters aren't even grindy, if you actually know what you're doing. It takes organisation. If you have very few players and get yourself into a large-scale conflict, then yeah, you're going to have to grind. That sounds a little like how it works in the real world too.

Your videos are entertaining, Yamiks, but it pays to know what you're talking about when you make them.

 

[damon8r351]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If one's only defense against a determined BGS opponent is the Federal Assault Ship they spent 1500 hours engineering, then they're a terrible BGS player and deserve everything that happens to them through the BGS.

 

[Sylveria]

For every BGS action, there is a counter. Every action. No exceptions.

In every mode, too. Open players can combat Solo/PG's players, much the same as the reverse. BGS is all indirect gameplay, regardless.

Claims have been continuously made (and proven incorrect) that there's some sort of "imbalance" where there is none. X player in Open performs an action that affects the BGS, Y player in Solo performs an action that affects the BGS. X player performs a counteraction to Y player's action that affects the BGS, lather, rinse, repeat.

Your second point as to "scale" is where the definitive variable lies- because larger groups of players (regardless of mode) may simply have more impact, as it should be.

 

[the100thmonkey]

If one's only defense against a determined BGS opponent is the Federal Assault Ship they spent 1500 hours engineering, then they're a terrible BGS player and deserve everything that happens to them through the BGS.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

In every mode, too. Open players can combat Solo/PG's players, much the same as the reverse. BGS is all indirect gameplay, regardless.

Claims have been continuously made (and proven incorrect) that there's some sort of "imbalance" where there is none. X player in Open performs an action that affects the BGS, Y player in Solo performs an action that affects the BGS. X player performs a counteraction to Y player's action that affects the BGS, lather, rinse, repeat.

Your second point as to "scale" is where the definitive variable lies- because larger groups of players (regardless of mode) may simply have more impact, as it should be.

It's ultimately a question of preference - the players you allude to seem to believe that the counter to everything should be shooting someone in the face.

 

[Sylveria]

It's ultimately a question of preference - the players you allude to seem to believe that the counter to everything should be shooting someone in the face.

Exactly. Their whole argument is based on the ability to counter someone directly versus indirectly.

 

[Roybe]

I am looking forward to the new C & P...and watching both sides of the mode issue have their moments!

 

[Abil Midena]

Another funny video. Good stuff!

I think the point in this video though, is just another opinion for the hotel california thread.

A couple things though:

- BGS <> PP. The two have been kept separate, as they should be, and they are really two different animals. There are still a couple ways they impact each other (cc thresholds, control systems making faction control near impossible), but they are really completely different. PP is a separate, tacked on, game mode. I can see why you mentioned both though, as you were talking more about modes, and who should have to play where.

- Dav has said that the BGS is a "B" GS, as in "BACKGROUND" simulation. It was not intended to be 'played' the way it is now, with folks supporting minor factions or gov types and taking actions to manipulate it. After some time in game though, it becomes one of the few things 'to do' that give you a 'why am I doing this' sort of satisfaction, however small it may be. So I don't think FD is going to do anything to change their intention, like restrict it to open only.

- Incentives for Open play has been dealt with before and the baby was ugly (several threads, and one with 2000 posts), and that was just in reference to PP. I have a feeling trying to do that for the BGS as well, would go down just as badly.

On a funny note, you mentioned you feel BGS play is as much fun as having your fingers crushed. Lots of people see random players flying around in circles making pew pew about as fun and complex as watching a turd swirl down a toilet.

 

[Roybe]

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

It's ultimately a question of preference - the players you allude to seem to believe that the counter to everything should be shooting someone in the face.

Actually, reading this story proves this adage wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Country_of_the_Blind)

As far as the preference thing goes...yeah...and the PVP folks keep missing/ignoring/hating that particular point. It is also the ultimate reason that most 'real' PVP people leave...and why other PVP people feel it is best to try to do things that embarrass or annoy the devs.

And finally, to address the idea that affects should only occur from Open....

 

[the100thmonkey]

Dav has said that the BGS is a "B" GS, as in "BACKGROUND" simulation. It was not intended to be 'played' the way it is now, with folks supporting minor factions or gov types and taking actions to manipulate it. After some time in game though, it becomes one of the few things 'to do' that give you a 'why am I doing this' sort of satisfaction, however small it may be. So I don't think FD is going to do anything to change their intention, like restrict it to open only.

And I'm very grateful to FD for investing in such a background to the universe - I don't believe that the other aspects of the game would have kept me involved for as long as this.

- Incentives for Open play has been dealt with before and the baby was ugly (several threads, and one with 2000 posts), and that was just in reference to PP. I have a feeling trying to do that for the BGS as well, would go down just as badly.

Open is an incentive in and of itself. There's no need over and above that to incentivise it.

Lots of people see random players flying around in circles making pew pew about as fun and complex as watching a turd swirl down a toilet.

That's an image that will stay with me for a while. Thanks, I think... PvP is a lot of fun. As for whether it should be the primary determiner of effect in the game, Atlas shrugs.

 

[Schlack]

Triggered!

Not really. Both the bgs and powerplay act as pvp by the proxy of pve. It also provides a reason and arena for pvp for those who want it. However if you're defending your patch or assaulting someone elses though pvp youre doing it wrong!

The game just doesnt work that way.

Also timezones, instancing problems, 24 hour and weekly timeframes for action, 16 cmdr limit in instances that favours your friends list and lest we forget a shared galaxy across three different platforms.

 

[Mouse]

Agreed.

As I've said before and will continue to reiterate, FDEV designed the BGS with this in mind. i.e., "Working as intended".

Solo/PG's players did NOT create this problem- and Solo/PG's players shouldn't be restricted in any way as a result. People who play in Open perceiving this as a "problem" continue to target PG's/Solo players as a venue for their frustrations/rage/jealousy instead of addressing the issue where the responsibility squarely lies- which is on FDEV's shoulders.

As FDEV introduced this system with the ability to affect BGS outcome from ALL modes, if people are perceiving it as an "issue" then perhaps they're expecting a different game.

Well said and agreed... We keep getting blamed for a problem we nor FDev created but hey.. it is easier to pass blame.